Supreme Court Scraps Anti- Anti-Conversion Law in Uttar Pradesh

You are Here: Tweet, Like, Share, Comment, Subscribe…be the Voice of Free Press!

By Syed Ali Mujtab, Edited by Adam Rizvi, The India Observer, TIO:

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, has said the right to choose a religion is purely a personal choice and the state cannot regulate it as it violates the Fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court was hearing the UP government’s Anti-Conversion Law (2025). It raised constitutional concerns over provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The court noted that the requirement to publicize converts’ personal details could infringe upon the right to privacy, which is interlinked with freedom of religion under Article 25.

The Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman said people have a right under the Constitution to profess, practice, and propagate their religion.

The bench lashed out at a “very, very harmful kind” of “public interest” petition, claiming there is mass religious conversion happening “by hook or by crook” across the country.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Muslim fishermen in Tamil Nadu are harassed by Christian fishermen on religious grounds

While quashing the PIL, the bench said, ‘Article 25 of the Constitution grants an individual the right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of his/her choice.’

“Every individual has the right to choose a belief and to profess it or not. In this, this provision gives complete autonomy to an individual in the sense of “no interference by the state,” the bench said.

 “Conversion is a purely personal thought process of an Indian citizen. The right to convert is akin to an individual’s right to choose their spouse. The right to marry between two consenting adults in opposition to their religion, caste, community, and family is a constitutional right. This is enshrined in the Special Marriage Act of 1955, which the state governments cannot undo,” Justice R. F. Nariman said in its landmark judgment.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Will the Caste Census bring smiles to the Muslim faces in India?  

The judgment further said, “the right to life and the right to conscience enshrined in Article 21 are interrelated to Article 25. These are the rights that are beyond the control of the state governments.”

This judgment of the Supreme Court is significant at a time when the BJP-ruled states have enacted anti-religious conversion laws.  The BJP government’s argument is, “Religious conversions or ‘inter-religious marriages are happening with the intention is to converting Hindus to the Islamic fold. Therefore anti-conversion law is essential to protect the Hindu identity.”

However, the BJP-ruled states have not given any statistics to substantiate their claim for anti-conversion laws. How many religious conversion or “love Jihad” cases are being reported from BJP-ruled states? There is no authentic evidence? The anti-conversion law was brought in on hearsay and only for political gains. There is documentary evidence to suggest how many Muslims are persecuted under such a stringent law.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Christian minorities are under siege in Indian Subcontinent

There are already several legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code to punish forced or fraudulent conversion, and also any such sham marriages. The BJP-ruled states, instead of focusing on strengthening inter-religious harmony, education and employment are sowing seeds of animosity among the communities.

What is apparent is that the anti-conversion law has a Hindu agenda, and that is to target the Muslim minority community so that they cannot live with dignity in India. Such laws also want to police the Hindu community so that they cannot cross the boundary of their religion. Such a law is nothing but a sheer infringement of the fundamental right to make individual choices.

In India, several judgments have affirmed the right to choose a religion as a fundamental right, primarily based on Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that individuals have personal autonomy over their faith, as long as the conversion is not based on fraud, force, or allurement.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: A wedding and many funerals

Landmark judgments affirming the right to choose religion

Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018): In the famous “Hadiya case,” the Supreme Court held that an adult’s choice of faith and life partner is a matter of personal liberty and autonomy, an integral part of Article 21. It ruled that courts cannot act as “super-guardians” to determine the validity of a person’s religious choices.

Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Nariman (2021) dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) petition against religious conversion. The bench stated that the right to choose a religion is part of the fundamental right to privacy. The bench emphasized that individuals are the “final judges” of their faith and courts cannot question that choice.

Delhi High Court (2022) observed that religious conversion is not prohibited by law unless it is forced. The judgment highlighted that Article 25 of the Constitution gives every person the right to choose and profess any religion of their choice and that this is a constitutional right.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Protest over Lioness Sita and Lion Akbar Caged in Same Enclosure 

The nuance between “propagate” and “convert”

A key judgment that informs the debate on conversion is the 1977 case of Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the Supreme Court made a critical distinction:

Right to propagate: The court held that the right to “propagate” one’s religion does not include the right to convert another person by force, fraud, or allurement. It means having the right to express your beliefs to others.

Right to convert: The judgment established that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion. This reasoning has since been used to justify anti-conversion laws in several BJP-ruled states. This needs to be thrashed out by the legal community, and once and for all, the conversion debate has to be laid to rest, balancing the individual’s right to privacy and freedom of conscience against allegations of forced or fraudulent conversion.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Muslims may face renewed persecution during the third term of Modi India

Conclusion 

The mandate of a welfare state is to develop its citizens to live in peace and harmony and not to monitor individuals’ freedom, to profess and preach one’s faith, and to attract them to their religious beliefs.  As the Supreme Court continues to hear petitions and weigh constitutional concerns over anti-conversion laws, the central issue is how to close this debate.

Also Read more from this Author: BRICS Generation Call for Papers for an International Conference on BRICS+ in January 2026

Curated by Humra Kidwai

Articles written by contributors have different viewpoints. The views expressed in the articles are the author’s own and not necessarily supported by TIO, The India Observer its affiliates, staff, or the management. Our Articles can be reproduced, with the following conditions, (1) No alteration to the content, (2) Visible, and full credit is given to the Author & Editor. (3) Citing, The India Observer, TIO. In the case of online or electronic media, a link to the original article must be given. Rules are strictly enforced. Any questions, email the Editor at: Mediaiss@gmail.com Or TheIndiaObserver@gmail.com